Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017
Should we add rapist to the lead sentence of Roman Polanski's intro. Gene2010 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Roman Polanski's introduction states him as being a: French-Polish film director, producer, writer, actor, and convicted statutory rapist. I think that this matter is covered extensively in the article itself and it is unnecessary to state such a thing at the top of the page.
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done by . jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that Polanski is known as much for being a statutory rapist as he is for his work in the film industry, and as such, it is appropriate and consistent with other Wikipedia pages regarding infamously criminal celebrities (see, for example, O.J. Simpson) to highlight it at the top. By way of illustration regarding Polanski being well-known for raping a kid and then fleeing the country, Google his name: The majority of the first page of links are in regards to Polanski-as-rapist, not Polanski-as-director (if searched in private/incognito browsing mode). What mitigating details and background, exactly, are you referring to in arguing that it's "hateful and unfair" to highlight his conviction in raping a 13 year old girl? Please be more specific. Until then, I am adding the note back to the top line in order to maintain internal consistency. SALLY 9000 (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised nobody has reverted the edit. Read the Wikipedia policy MOS:OPENPARA here: The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. Gene2010 (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And if you look up almost any reliable source in the last 20 years or so, Roman Polanski is described as a convicted rapist. Here's an article about him filming in Poland, and it mentions his raping of a child. Another random sampling of articles is all about him being a child rapist. Here's an entire review of The Pianist asking if it can redeem Polanski from the stigma of being a child rapist. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, unless you live in a bubble it's clearly what Polanski is primarily known for to the general public and should thus be mentioned first up. Also, for me the article's emphasis on "statutory rape" is rather odd, as it implies some sort of consent (like, "oh, this would be fine if she were an adult") ... when according to the facts of the case (which AFAIK aren't in dispute) he drugged her and then overpowered her. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fact that he was convicted has been wildly covered in many many reliable sources. What he did was ugly and unforgivable. Nothing debatable there. But please don't let emotion get into this. The point of MOS:OPENPARA is, is it what he was commonly called in reliable sources? A rapist? Gene2010 (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes! Time magazine calls him a "fugitive" in the headline of their biography. He is commonly known as a child rapist. Even in articles discussing his films and career, they usually bring up his raping of a child or state his "controverisial private life". And in all honesty, the fact he's been a fugitive from justice for 40 years now has equal weight with his career, much like OJ and the murder trial. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 09:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point when I search futilely for the word rapist in the source you provided. I think we really need additional comments on this. Gene2010 (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the article used the word "sexual assault" instead of rape. Maybe we should change the lede to reflect that? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 10:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are a handful of reputable sources explicitly using the word "rapist" to describe him:
 * The Atlantic: Roman Polanski and the Limits of Artistic Freedom
 * Vanity Fair: ROMAN POLANSKI: OF ARTISTS AND PERVERTS
 * CNN: DA: 'Child rapist' Polanski doesn't deserve special treatment
 * Salon: Corporate media’s rape problem: Supporting the stars, ignoring the charges
 * Deutsche Welle: US court rejects Roman Polanski's bid to end rape case
 * CBS News:
 * Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen Defend Child Rapist Roman Polanski, Why Shouldn't You?
 * Roman Polanski Case: Does France Love Child-Rapists, Movie Directors, or Both?
 * NPR: Loving The Art But Not The Artist
 * Rasmussen Reports (conservative-leaning, but reliable enough to be used by FiveThirtyEight.com): Roman the Rapist
 * Vox (left-leaning and has made a few mistakes in the past, but has arguably improved the quality of its work since then): Roman Polanski is now facing a 4th accusation of sexual assault against a teen: The long history of Roman Polanski’s child rape charges, from 1977 to the present.
 * And, as you know (or you wouldn't be demanding the verbatim use of "rapist"), there are countless sources calling what he did "rape." If you are infamous for raping someone, then you are a rapist. SALLY 9000 (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The Atlantic does not call him a 'rapist' it cites others describing him thus. Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * include in first paragraph + add to lede "fugitive from American justice". His multi-decade fugitive status is highly notable and bears mentioning in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude from opening para, the subject is covered quite neutrally at present in para 3 of lead. He is known primarily as a film-maker, not as a rapist. nb, for those discussing the case above, RP was prepared to plead guilty to the 'statutory' charge, but the other charges ('actual' rape, drugging etc) have never been tested in a court and are denied by him.  Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am strongly opposed to the characterization of statutory rape as not being "actual" rape. It is disgusting to minimize rape in such a way, and I'm sure many others would agree. Here are the Google News archives for Roman Polanski. Every article for 6 pages (at least for me) is about his status as a fugitive rapist. If that isn't evidence of his notability as a rapist, I don't know what is. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 10:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You note I put 'actual' in inverted commas, that does not minimise 'statutory' - which is rape regardless of circumstances, since we deem people under a certain age of being unable - by definition - to meaningfully give consent. The two are different, not necessarily more or less serious. The law uses different terms, and so should we. Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude 'statutory rapist' from opening sentence but mention fugitive status somewhere in the opening paragraph. Actual notability derives from his work as a filmmaker, not the statutory rape charge (otherwise we would have an article about every person who commits statutory rape). Keep a reference to his fugitive status in the opening paragraph as it is an important subject, but giving the rape charge equal weight to his actual work in the opening sentence doesn't read as NPOV to me. carelesshx talk 14:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How does this possibly relate to NPOV? It's not a "point of view" that he raped a 14 year old. He did so and pled guilty. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral in tone. The phrase 'statutory rapist' is emotive and unencyclopaedic and doesn't belong in the opening sentence, in my opinion. It looks like advocacy for the victim, which, while noble, is not what WP is for. carelesshx talk 21:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reiterate my earlier point about the observation that the vast majority of public discourse on Polanski over the past few decades have been equal parts Roman-as-Director and Roman-as-Rapist. Systems of information targeting a universal audience like Wikipedia should and do strive to prioritize the frequency with which information on a given feature of any item in its collection is sought and discussed by its users. Information systems are highly contextual in nature. As such, I would continue to argue that it is indeed appropriate, useful, and encyclopedic that both features of his life that are subject to frequent public discussion be mentioned at the very beginning of his entry.SALLY 9000 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum--Here is a list containing a sample of other biographical Wikipedia articles in which the first or second sentence describe the individual's sex crimes, often using the word "rapist" to describe them:
 * Vince Champ
 * Tom Payne (basketball)
 * Philip Pickett
 * Theodore Rinaldo
 * Mel Reynolds
 * Baruch Lanner
 * Robert H. Richards IV
 * Seraphim Storheim
 * Osmany Uriarte
 * Ronald Bennett (priest)
 * Terry Hornbuckle
 * Owen Oyston
 * Mary Kay Letourneau
 * Daniel Holtzclaw
 * Tony Walsh (priest)
 * Ernesto Miranda
 * Li Tianyi
 * Thomas Naughton
 * Ray Teret
 * Jennifer Fichter
 * Brian Young (magistrate)
 * Andrew Luster
 * Paul Shanley
 * Kweku Hanson
 * D. C. Stephenson
 * Thomas Knapton
 * Serial rapists not notable for anything else (e.g., Alan Robert Webster, John Lambe (M5 Rapist), Antoni Imiela, Richard Huckle, Peter Samuel Cook, Edward Paisnel, Joji Obara) are often introduced as such, but I have tried to limit their presence on this list
 * Similarly, many serial killers (e.g., Luis Garavito, Pedro López (serial killer), Mark Goudeau, Ted Bundy) have articles beginning with descriptions of them as rapists, so I limited the rest of the list to non-murderers
 * Polanski is decidedly not alone in having his rape conviction mentioned at the top of his entry. SALLY 9000 (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you can show that it's in the MoS somewhere, or it's been arbitrated on before, the fact that other articles are written like that is not a positive argument for why this one should be. Besides, in at least half of those articles the subject's only claim to notability is their crimes - this is clearly not the case with Polanski. I don't see any positive argument here for why including the phrase "and statutory rapist" in the opening sentence improves this article, given that the subject is covered exhaustively in the body of the article. carelesshx talk 03:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is NPOV: He is a convicted statutory rapist as validated by reliable secondary sources interpretation of public court documents, there are no contentious labels being used regarding his legal status as such, and his status as a rapist is a common topic for discussion by reputable sources and has been for a long time (as per The Atlantic in 2010, "it's not hard nowadays to find mainstream sources willing to call Polanski a rapist"). Is his role as a notorious rapist as notable as his role in film? Well, maybe. Is his is role in the film industry as notable as his role as a notorious rapist? Well, maybe. His work as a director, producer, writer, and actor is discussed extensively in his article as well. I could just as easily say that I don't see how including the phrase "film director, producer, writer, actor" in the opening sentence improves this article, given that the subject is covered exhaustively in the body of the article. SALLY 9000 (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is best to avoid equating statutory rape and rape, by the use of rapist, in Wiki's voice. He is notable for his fugitive status due to his statutory rapist conviction. His fugitive status is clearly pertinent. If this were an old 40 year old conviction it would be one thing - but in this case he lived his entire life since as a fugitive, unable to travel, and at risk of apprehension by law enforcement.Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point, and his fugitive status can be verified as ongoing by reputable and timely secondary sources, including LA Times, the Guardian, Reuters, CBS News, the NY Times and multiple Variety articles. I chose the language referring to him as a convicted statutory rapist because, in addition to being accurate and a significant source for his notability, it was the most concise way of fitting it into his introduction. However, if you and others on the talk page have a strong sense that the article would be improved by referring to the act of rape rather than referring to Polanski as a rapist, I will try to rephrase it in a way that flows well and notes his fugitive status. SALLY 9000 (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum--Thoughts on phrasing as something along the lines of "Rajmund Roman Thierry Polański (born 18 August 1933) is a French-Polish film director, producer, writer, actor, and international fugitive from United States law enforcement for statutory rape" for the intro? SALLY 9000 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Reverted. In no way does this conceivably pass BLP. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Undid reversion. It does indeed pass BLP. SALLY 9000 (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverted. This one does not appear close to me. You're not supposed to edit war over BLPVIO issues. There clearly is not a consensus on this page. If you disagree, the appropriate step is to start a discussion on BLP/N or an RfC. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although there is already a RfC on this page. Also, after considering comments from Icewhiz, I am happy to concede that it the tone may appear more neutral if phrased as something along the lines of "Rajmund Roman Thierry Polański (born 18 August 1933) is a French-Polish film director, producer, writer, actor, and international fugitive from United States law enforcement for statutory rape." SALLY 9000 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this or something along these lines (maybe trim down international / tweak phrasing).Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  06:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include its plenty neutral to include what the sources say and what people know him for. L3X1  (distænt write)  17:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus(?)--Include modification of the first line as follows:
 * "Rajmund Roman Thierry Polański (born 18 August 1933) is a French-Polish film director, producer, writer, actor, and fugitive from the United States' justice system for statutory rape."

This version is based on changes made to satisfy objections made in comments favoring exclude by editors Gene2010 and carelesshx to the use of the term "statutory rapist" to describe the person rather than describing conviction itself ("statutory rape"); on change of phrasing to include fugitive status suggested by carelesshx and Icewhiz, leading to conditional include and further feedback from Icewhiz ("maybe trim down international / tweak phrasing," modification made based on this feedback); on editor comments to include in initial form (as "statutory rapist") from SALLY 9000, Chess, and Ivar the Boneful; on new editor comment from L3X1 following modification recommending to include; and lack of other properly sourced reason to exclude. Because this is a BLP (and out of respect to other editors), I will refrain from making this edit to the article for a short period of time (24 hours from the time of this comment), and if there is no further objection after this time, I will include the modified version, indented above, in the article. SALLY 9000 (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While it sounds odd to me, and I would rather leave it out of the lead then include the "fugitive from DOJ" part, your edit does address everything so I guess I'm fine with it. Someone said above that if statutory rape was notable, we would have articles on every rapist ever. I want to point out that we would only have articles on the notable rapists. L3X1 (distænt write)  02:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It reads a little long. I would split it into separate sentence, eg. "Roman Polanski is a writer, director, actor, etc. Since 197x he has been a fugitive from the US justice system for statutory rape". But it addresses the main concern, so I'm fine with it. carelesshx talk 15:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, thanks! I've used this version in the article. SALLY 9000 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude as proposed (invited by the bot). Just put the key facts relevant to this in the lead. Once that is done there no need, conveyance of additional information or encyclopedic purpose to make "rapist" the / an  identifying noun of the person.  Also there are legal complexities.  In the US, even when guilt is 100% obvious, it is not stated unless/until they have convicted. If someone is arrested while committing a bank robbery, they still say "accused bank robber", not "bank robber" until then. And statutory rape of often a legally distinct term from rape without that adjective.    North8000  (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude 2nd phase in the lead ("Since 1978, he has been a fugitive..."). This is excessive because the controversy is described in sufficient detail in the 5th paragraph of the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the "fugitive from United States law enforcement for statutory rape" phrasing is a big improvement on the initial suggestion, I would amend it slightly (if used) to "fugitive from United States law enforcement charged with statutory rape". Regardless of the weight of evidence or his own willingness to plea bargain, there has been no trial and we should not be implying a conviction. I will not amend my vote above, since I think the matter is better dealt with more fully in para 3 - as it is at present, but this new phrasing is more WP:V and NPOV. Pincrete (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Instrumentalization of Wikipedia
Some words related to the last few months discussion: I find it a little ironic that, someone that apparently only participated to Wikipedia to satisfy her non-NPOV agenda of presenting Mr. Polanski has a "rapist" has obtained satisfaction in a way through the final consensus (weak consensus as it is not with much participation). This user edit history says all: SALLY_9000 While the article dealt with the subject in a reasonable way for most than 16 years without this necessity of such words in the lede, the fact this change happened in October 2017, in such an emotional background does not guarantee the fact this was a reasonable change. The rules of Wikipedia are here to prevent such instrumentalization and changes based on short term perceptions (as for example emotional events). Mayfoev (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, my edit history clearly shows that I created my account three years ago to update an article about a Fortran-based statistical software package, but this was a very clever attempt at an ad hominem attack on my Wikipedia presence to protest my reasonable contribution to this page. SALLY 9000 (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018
Polański started to make a new movie, please add it to filmography. The pictures started in November. There are already photos from the plan. Karczek (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2398149/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_1
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Polanski's efforts to find the murderers
Nothing under the Tate section about him trying to do his own private investigating (like paying $2500 for checking William Castle's handwriting against the writing found in blood, falsely suspecting Bruce Lee, etc.) There are Reliable Sources on this. 104.169.28.236 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Regarding this edit: Can someone explain why these paragraphs are important?

The only thing I can see of possible relevance (to this page at least) is that Huston briefly encountered Gailey at the time of the incident and noticed nothing untoward. What is the importance of the two large dogs? Gailey appearing "quite tall"? The fact that Huston had recently broken up with Nicholson? Popcornduff (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019
Hey all! Here's the issue:

and ultimately said, "You aren't one of us", he said.

Should read:

and said, "You aren't one of us." Jenwithapen (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2019
The backdrop to Polanski's film The Pianist (2002) is the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto, and not the Krakow ghetto as stated in the article. 82.0.170.93 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Other pages also reference Warsaw, not Krakow. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that Warsaw Ghetto is correct for The Pianist, so I have made the change. I'm not sure if that is the kind of detail that needs to be supported by a dedicated source in this article, it's more or less part of the film's plot? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

First Born Son is missing from wiki
Someone need to add Paul Richard Polanski and Elvis Polanski under the children. Don’t forget his baby’s name. 1physicsman (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do have any source(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The baby’s name is clearly shown in this picture of the Tate family burial plot: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tate_family_grave.JPG#mw-jump-to-license 1physicsman (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Venice Film Festival Awards in another section ?
Is there any precise reason why the awards given at the Venice Film Festival, one of the three or four biggest film festival in the world, are in an "other awards" section. Especially the Grand Prix Award for An Officer and a Spy? --Mayfoev (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Filmography, writing credit
Many of his films have credited screenwriters in addition to Polanski. It seems a bit misleading to have him checked off as the writer on this list. Just as one example, The Ghost Writer was adapted from a novel, and the author also worked on the screenplay. I don't really edit Wikipedia, so I thought I'd leave this comment. If anyone is bothering to read it, hi. Heretowriteacomment (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation that challenges that? The corresponding reference for The Ghost Writer is Roman Polanski returns with 'Ghost' - Entertainment News, Film News, Media, which indicates that "Robert Harris will team with Polanski to adapt Harris' novel of the same name, published last month by Simon & Schuster, for the bigscreen." Without a citation, I think that your assertion is original research. Peaceray (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Age difference with & length of marriage to Emmanuelle Seigner
I would suggest we change the wording from:



to:



After all, there is nothing particularly worth noting about the age difference nor the length of the marriage. Readers who are really interested can click through to Emmanuelle Seigner's article to learn her age.

In contrast, I think that something like Charlie Chaplin does bear mentioning in that article because it is important to Chaplin's biography. Here in Polanski's article, that is not the case.

Peaceray (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this and support it. Stating the age difference is meant to imply there's something notable about the difference in ages. Combined with the fact that Roman Polanski was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl it seems like the statement of the large gap in ages is meant to be a negative implication that Roman Polanski has a pattern of liking younger women. That's only an implication that should be made if reliable sources also reflect on and discuss the age gap of his marriage like how Leonardo DiCaprio usually dates women under 25. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Birth name (Liebling or Polanski ?)
Apparently his birth name is "Rajmund Roman Thierry Polański", so I put that in the lead and infobox instead of "Raymond Thierry Liebling".

I'm quite confident of it, but not 100% sure and I need more ppl to confirm this. -  (talk)  18:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

why talk about RAPE in TWO places in the introduction?
Please someone explain to me why we have to mention in two places in the intro that Polanski was charged with rape.

The intro states the following:

Polanski is also a fugitive from the U.S. criminal justice system; he fled the country while awaiting sentencing on five criminal charges, including rape.[4]

However rape is mentioned AGAIN in the intro a few paragraphs below and states the following:

''In 1977, Polanski was arrested and charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. He pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of unlawful sex with a minor.[10] In 1978, after learning that the judge planned to reject his plea deal and impose a prison term instead of probation, he fled to Paris.[11] A number of other women have later accused Polanski of raping them when they were teenagers.[12] He remains the subject of an Interpol red notice issued for his arrest, and therefore rarely leaves France.[1]''

I tried to move this paragraph to the legal section but people keep putting it back in the intro. I think it is OK to mention rape in the intro but not to go into so much detail in the intro, after all it is just that an INTRO

Why not move this detailed paragraph the the legal history section?

Do any of you agree? or disagree? what are your arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julieprus (talk • contribs)
 * I would say that the very first sentences of every article are like "the lede of the lede"; they are meant to convey the most relevant aspects in very few words. A few more details are presented further down the lede, and much more in the body of the article. That's why I don't think this is a case of redundancy\repetition. There are different lead styles (some are very succinct, others not so much), this one in particular is not a extremely succinct one. That's another reason for going a little more in depth about that event. -  (talk)  16:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Daveout explained it better than I can. The first paragraph is a brief summary of Roman Polanski and describes him as a Polish-French film director who fled the United States after being convicted on rape charges. Then the rest of the lede goes is a detailed summary of his life, such as the films he's directed, his wife's death, and his conviction on rape. Then the main body of the article actually goes into detail on his life. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 14:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

recent paragraph addition
Large segments of sentences and even whole sentences in the paragraph starting with "In October 2020, Polanski returned to Poland and paid tribute to a Polish couple" can easily be found as originating from various news sources. Doesn't this constitute a copyright violation? Also, the source that is mentioned for the info in this paragraph (abcnews.go.com) has the exact same paragraph, maybe even word for word, suggesting the copyright may belong to them. Mark in wiki (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. If something is copied from another source that's a straightforward copyright violation and something you do not need consensus or permission to remove. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word "rape" in the introduction
Good morning to everybody, I have just noticed that the introduction of the Roman Polanski’s Wikipedia profile in English mentions that « he fled the country in 1977 while awaiting sentencing on five criminal charges, including rape.[4] » in the first paragraph but the articles about the case dit not mention "rape" and the justice did not judge him on « rape » but on « unlawful sexual intercourse ». It seems to me that the use of the word « rape » could be an interpretation that does not fit the reality. There are several sources about this : The Hollywood Reportermentions "He remains a fugitive after fleeing the United States in 1978 over the unlawful sex case”, Varietymentions « Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl, but left the country in 1978 before he could be formally sentenced. », the press release of the Federal office of justice mentions : « Polanski had admitted to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He is wanted by the US authorities with a view to passing sentence for this offence. »

As you can see, the word « rape » is never used. I think the last part of the sentence « including rape » should be deleted. Curiousju (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He was charged with rape. The charges were:
 * furnishing a controlled substance to a minor
 * lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14
 * unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 18
 * rape by use of drugs
 * perversion (now called oral copulation)
 * sodomy
 * The word rape summarizes very well the accusations against him. -  (talk)  12:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response.

However, the article of the Washington Post used as a source specifies that « Geimer says she would not call it rape but that the sex was not consensual. ». Moreover, the article of Digital Spy (used as a source) mentions that « Whoopi Goldberg has said that Roman Polanski was not guilty of "rape-rape ». Moreover, the article of the BBC also (used as as source) says « The film-maker was arrested and charged with a string of offences, eventually admitting to having sex with a minor. » None of the articles mentions specifically that it was a rape. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on sources, I do not consider the sentence « including rape » as a true statement and I think it should be corrected. Curiousju (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There are plenty of sources stating that, it's not hard to find. I was able to find one by just taking a quick look at this other article. This quote: "Geimer says she would not call it rape but that the sex was not consensual." is a bit odd. non-consensual sex is literally the definition of rape, specially so when the victim is under 14yo. -  (talk)  14:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Why would Whoopi Goldberg's opinion have anything to do with this?  Plenty of news sources call it "rape" just search for his name and the word rape. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1013&bih=468&tbm=nws&ei=dDnOX6vGJoi4tQWdkbLAAQ&q=%22Roman+Polanski%22+%22rape%22&oq=%22Roman+Polanski%22+%22rape%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1120.2983.0.3191.9.9.0.0.0.0.114.642.8j1.9.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.268...0.0.yk7-AdRc13M Having sex with a 13 year old child is considered rape by any possible definition.  He was accused of multiple types of rape as Daveout listed above, so just saying "rape" instead of listing all of them makes sense.   D r e a m Focus  14:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Rape template lists many specific types of rape. One of them is statutory rape that has a legal definition in most US state jurisdictions. In the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case article, it states (references omitted) At his arraignment, Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of the five initial charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.


 * Therefore, if we wish to be exact & factual, we should reflect what was legally found & not what was alleged, & change the language from he fled the country in 1977 while awaiting sentencing on six charges, including rape to he fled the country in 1977 while awaiting sentencing for statutory rape.


 * In fact, the cited source in the lead for this indicated:


 * Rape of any type is abhorrent. We do not need to sensationalize it further. The details are well covered in Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. What we need to do is to accurately summarize the status of the legal case, which was Polanski fleeing the country while awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to statutory rape.
 * Peaceray (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The reference reads unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, that what the crime was called, not statutory rape. SO just mention exactly what they called the crime he was convicted of, not something else.   D r e a m Focus  18:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Unlawful intercourse with a minor redirects to statutory rape. I am not a lawyer, but my impression is that they are considered the same thing, specifically that "minority voids consent" except in certain "Romeo & Juliet" laws.


 * That said, I have no objection to changing the language to he fled the country in 1977 while awaiting sentencing for unlawful intercourse with a minor.


 * Peaceray (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The statutory rape article reads: statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent. That's like calling the victim a slut, and saying she wanted to but was too young, that certainly not the case here.  So best to say unlawful intercourse with a minor.   D r e a m Focus  20:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅. BTW, I disagree that it is "like calling the victim a slut". As the statutory rape article states, Statutory rape laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally handicapped adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act. Thus the onus of responsibility clearly lies with the older individual. Peaceray (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Confusing 2017 Polanski quote in Guardian article May 3, 2018
I came to this article to discover facts relating to "Roman Polanski and Bill Cosby expelled from the film Academy" by Guardian Staff 14:52 Thu May 3, 2018. At first, I thought I didn't find them, because I was looking for when Polanski came back to the U.S. _recently_. Perhaps the article could make this clearer. I didn't notice any discussion of the 2017 Polanski quote below in the article (but didn't yet read the main article on legal dispute). The Guardian didn't give a source.

A minor point: I needed to know about the main article on the legal controversies immediately but discovered its existence after much reading. Not a waste of time, but irritating.

Quote from The Guardian:

Polanski, who won an Oscar for best director in 2003, has been a fugitive since fleeing to France in 1978 while awaiting sentencing for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old. While his membership is being taken away, he will keep his award.

“As far as what I did: it’s over,” Polanski said in 2017. “I pleaded guilty. I went to jail. I came back to the United States to do it, people forget about that, or don’t even know. I then was locked up here [in Zurich] after this festival. So in the sum, I did about four or five times more than what was promised to me.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.59.69 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph versus bio
Do Wikipages on serial rapists have an opening paragraph which includes "...and he once shot a 8mm home movie which is presently un-released by any Hollywood studio...." ? No, but you can put a pargraph in the bio under 'artistic achievements'.

Unless someone can make a case for an exception, biographical items should go in the bio. Otherwise the summary is the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarrySime (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see that anywhere. What exactly are you talking about?   D r e a m Focus  00:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

inaccuracy on Nuremberg Laws
current text: "Kraków was soon occupied by the German forces, and the racist and anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws made the Polańskis targets of persecution, forcing them into the Kraków Ghetto, along with thousands of the city's Jews."

1. "racist" is misleading here and should be removed. Whatever German laws and policies were used to persecute Polanski's family were based solely on their being Jews. Had they been non-Jewish Poles, they might have been persecuted on the basis of racist rather than anti-Semitic policies, which would have meant less persecution in every respect. Everything that happened to them was persecution to the level applied to Jews (antisemitism), not Poles (racism, occupation).

2. The ghettoization was not based on Nuremberg Laws but the policies of the General Gouvernement in Poland. Germany had Nuremberg Laws since 1935 and no ghettos. Ghettos were set up in occupied territory as an occupation policy. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Response on 1: As the Antisemitism article indicates, Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism. I would recommend abandoning that argument, otherwise you will find that WP:DROPTHESTICK applies here.
 * Response on 2: I believe that you may be correct in this argument. The Nuremberg laws applied to Germany. However, it would be best if you could provide some information on this. Would you provide citations about how the occupying German forces created & applied policies for Poland?
 * Peaceray (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * DROPTHESTICK refers to a long drawn out or persistent argument ("beating a dead horse"), does it not? Here there was a single observation.  Anyway, the argument is not that antisemitism isn't a form of racism, but that it is much more specific than racism in the context of Nazi-occupied Poland, and that attributing what happened to Polanski's family to the more diffuse concept of racism is incorrect.
 * Neither racism nor anti-Semitism are really necessary to mention here considering there is a link to Nuremberg Laws. But if they are added to make the sentence self contained (without the reader having to click to the Nuremberg Laws page in case of not knowing about them) then the full relevant information is that the laws targeted Jews, and racism is redundant (as you pointed out!) and somewhat misleading in this context.  For example, there were some Africans and maybe other nonwhite foreigners in Germany who were detained during the war, because Nazi Germany was racist, and Hitler certainly considered blacks inferior, but the Nuremberg Laws had nothing to do with that, and the situation of Africans (Gypsies, occupied Slavs, etc) was not particularly connected to that of Jews.  The point of the sentence is to explain what happened to Polanski's family and why, not to narrate everything that was bad about Nazism or the Nuremberg laws (otherwise we should add many more adjectives to the sentence beyond "racist" and "antisemitic"). 73.89.25.252 (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * re item 2, the ghettos seem not to be a policy with much formal or legal structure, there isn't some other law they sprang from in occupied territory other than "Germans will do whatever the hell they want", so it's not clear what to document and how. Ghettos were first set up to solve practical problems in running Poland -- Jews were being forced east and got placed in ghettos established by the local German commanders, often not even the top level authorities but positions like city inspector.  There was a decision by the top Nazis after Kristallnacht to not concentrate Jews within Germany, but Goering (who had been overruled on this point) supported ghettos and after the invasion of Poland, local authorities who so chose could create them, and ghettos proliferated but in no particular sequence or plan. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

WWII
This paragraph should be rewritten. The story is wrong, it is almost all silly gossip an fabrication. Plus the language and grammar are terrible. Look up his story on Polish Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.204.32.221 (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe needs improvement, please feel free to change it.  We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, since wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.   TJRC (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree if you don't like it you can try to make it better, thank you Julieprus (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Interpol Red Notice
The article states that Polanski rarely leaves France because he is on Interpol's Red List (and therefore subject to arrest and possible extradition). However, on checking Interpol's Red List today (11th May 2021), Polanski is no longer on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.202.109 (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the wording to remove the claim that he remains on the list, per WP:RELTIME. We need a reliable secondary source to go further. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Mistaken details
Łódź was not the third-largest, as stipulated in the article, but the second-largest city in Poland at the time Polański attended film academy there. It has been the third-largest city now (2021) for a couple of years.

About "Knife in the Water". Leon Niemczyk, who played Andrzej, was the only professional actor in the film. It's also inaccurate. Zygmunt Malanowicz, playing the boy, was attending the third year of acting studies at the moment of starring and developed a successful career afterwards.

5.172.239.188 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation errors
There are currently 8 cite errors in the References section. Can these all be removed? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Charlotte Lewis
I don't like the way the paragraph about Charlotte Lewis is phrased. It sounds as though Wikipedia is calling her a liar which is not proven. It also does not match up with what is written on Lewis' own page. 2601:152:880:2B0:7511:DEB8:F154:C593 (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you sign this please? SweetTaylorJames (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not comfortable with how it is written either. I don't think it should be written in a way that subjectively condemns Polanski, but neither should it be written in a lawyerly way that attempts to discredit her with arguments that do not in fact discredit her. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have suggestions on how to rewrite that paragraph? I would do it myself but I am not confident I could rewrite it without making it worse. 2601:152:880:2B0:BDC1:BEB5:BBBB:DEE7 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * In 2010, British actress Charlotte Lewis said that Polanski had "forced himself" on her while she was auditioning for a role in Paris in 1983, when she was 16 and he was 50. In 1999, Lewis had given a very different account of events in an interview with the UK's News of the World, which was unearthed by the French daily Libération. In that interview, Lewis asserted that she had a six-month tryst with Polanski when she was 17: "I knew that Roman had done something bad in the United States, but I wanted to be his mistress," Lewis said, according to Liberation. "I wanted him probably more than he wanted me." In addition, Lewis never mentioned any sexual abuse, and she said that their relationship ended when Polanski introduced her to Warren Beatty, and she claimed that they soon began an affair. Furthermore, she was cast in Polanski's 1986 film Pirates, appeared at the Cannes film festival on his arm years after the alleged incident, and in an interview the year of the film's release, Lewis stated, "I'd love to have had a romantic relationship with [Polanski], and a physical one. You can't help falling in love with him. But he didn't want me that way."

Kindly remove the two introductory adverbials I bolded. They're not needed, and their effect is to editorialize. The rest of the two sentences encyclopedically report what occurred; readers ought to make up their own minds as to how this reflects on either of the accounts at hand.

- 2A02:560:4200:F400:7C11:A636:E605:7380 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -  (talk)  23:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Name change
Not sure I'm missing something, but the article doesn't explain when and why "Raymond Thierry Liebling" became Roman Polanski? Any info on this?GeebaKhap (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It does say that his father changed the family name: "he was the son of ... Mojżesz Liebling, a painter and manufacturer of sculptures, who after World War II was known as Ryszard Polański." TJRC (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But it's not an obvious so change so further info would be good GeebaKhap (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2022
Roman Polanski is a rapist who is on the run from the United States Justice System. THAT should be the first line of his bio, not reserved for the second paragraph. 2605:EF80:18:8807:0:0:260:10B2 (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus among editors needed. -  (talk)  13:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Opening
Roman Polanski article opens with

"Roman Polanski (Polish: Polanski /p?'lænski/, p?-LAN-skee, ['r?man p?'laj~sk?i] (About this soundListen); born Raymond Thierry Liebling;[2] 18 August 1933) is a Polish-French[3] film director, producer, writer, and actor. Polanski is also a fugitive from the U.S. criminal justice system; he fled the country in 1977 while awaiting sentencing for unlawful intercourse with a minor.[4] "

which means

"Roman Polanski is a movie director" then added details about something from his 1960s trial.

Q: Why is not this in the bio section on 1960s trial ?

You cannot put everything in the introductary paragraph. Hence, bio section paragraphs.

So why is it not in there ?

HarrySime (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * . The lede summarizes relevant parts of the article and this is definitely one of those. Please undo your latest edit. -   (talk)  01:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * HarrySime please stop trying to edit war that part out of the opening. It is something he gets the most news attention for, so it should be in the lead.   D r e a m Focus  02:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"It is something he gets the most news attention for" : I don't think I agree with this. His body of film work is huge. While the legal events are not minor, there are hardly the most significance in amplitude or breadth. The Phil Spector wikipage would be closer to your description, in that while the body of his work was large, the legal events were much larger than Roman Polanski's and defined the rest of his life. Not so with Polanski. HarrySime (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree here. It should be in the lead section of the article, but it takes more space in the lead paragraph than his film work. --Clibenfoart (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's one short paragraph of five. It covers an essential part of his notability, summarizing its treatment in the article body as WP:LEDE suggests. It doesn't look WP:UNDUE to me.
 * It's not correct that the legal issues take more space in the lede than his film work. In the  current version, the passages about his film work take 188 words; the legal issues take 113 (i.e., the film discussion is about 2/3 more than the legal discussion). That sounds about right to me.
 * Certainly many readers come to this article to read about his filmmaking. However, many other readers are aware of Polanski from reading a news story about his extradition efforts and crime, and the article is for those readers just as much as it is for film buffs. The short discussion in the lede of the issue which is the source of many readers' interest in him is perfectly appropriate. TJRC (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Clibenfoart, it's given too much emphasis. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The body of work for Harvey Weinstein is also huge. His lead line includes that he's a convicted sex offender.  It may have been too much to have a dedicated for the opening paragraph, but removing it from the opening is waaaaaay to far in the other direction, and is just gross whitewashing.
 * Furthermore, I have seen non consensus here that it should be removed from the lead entirely, and users who are doing so are defintinely in violation of consenus. At best, there is only agreement that there was over-emphasis, which implies some level of emphasis is warranted.
 * I suggest we use Harvey Weintstein's page as a model and include a brief descriptor of him as a child sexual abuser at the end of the opening line of the lead:
 * Roman Polanski (born Raymond Thierry Liebling on 18 August 1933) is a Polish and French film director, producer, screenwriter, actor and convicted child sex abuser. Shadybabs (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree there should be some mention of the accusations in the lede (although your recent addition feels like it's giving too much emphasis to it) however, your suggestion for the opening sentence is not appropriate. Director, producer, screenwriter and actor are all professions and are appropriately listed.  "convicted child sex abuser" does not belong there. Rcarter555 (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The magnitude of the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases hardly compares with the one conviction Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. Other allegations against Polanski are unprosecuted. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to comparing the two.
 * Regarding the allegations, WP:BLPCRIME applies. In fact, the Additional allegations, 2017 onwards section violates WP:BLPPUBLIC because it lacks multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident.
 * MOS:LEADSENTENCE states The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It further states Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. The current version does this. Polanski is primarily known as a film maker, & the his notoriety for a single conviction for "unlawful sexual intercourse" & the circumstances around that are not what he is primarily know for.
 * It may be that some want to draw undue attention to this, but that would violate the neutrality pillar & neutral point of view policy. Peaceray (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't true. Polanski is primarily known for being a child sexual abuser - as most people think that is more important to discuss than his film work. Additionally, he has only made a few significantly acclaimed or important movies (such as Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby). Furthermore, it is highly inappropriate of you to accuse other editors of wanting to draw undue attention to his crimes - when they are trying to figure out how to objectively write about them in the article. Other editors have just as much a right to discuss this subject as you - without being accused of bias due to their differing views. Ariana Williscroft (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You state a lot of opinions as fact. Polanski is not ‘primarily’ known for being a child sexual abuser. The fact that you think “most people think that is more important to discuss than his film work” shows that you have an incredible bias and probably shouldn’t be editing this article. His list of significant films is much larger than those two (including others for which he has won academy awards). Rcarter555 (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not true, he is regarded as one of the most prominent movie directors and the list of his acclaimed movies is much much longer (Knife in the water, Death and the maiden, The Pianist, The Tenant, Cul-de-sac, Frantic, Repulsion and so on. His criminal history is already mentioned in the introduction Marcelus (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for a film buff specifically, the weight of his work dwarfs his criminal record, but, speaking as a lay person, most mentions of his name in the news, in media, and in public, tends to be about his criminal history, and less about his body of work. Nobody is seeking to erase his history as a filmmaker to focus only on his criminal history.  They both are important aspects.  I was drawn to read the discussion pages specifically because I thought absence of his criminal history in the opening was conspicuous.  The omission is enough to draw attention. HeroofTime55 (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Except it IS in the opening. Just not in the first sentence or the first paragraph, as some would prefer. It has an entire paragraph to itself in the opening section, so to describe that as “absent” or an “omission” is factually incorrect. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Quit misrepsenting the talk page, Rcarter. The commenters here want this mentioned in the lead, just not the first sentence.   Shadybabs (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It IS mentioned in the lede. You want it mentioned in the very first paragraph, which there is not consensus for. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be in the first sentence in addition to the existing larger section of the lede, just like the other descriptors. natemup (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2022
Change Polánski to Polański in the infobox. 188.146.142.195 (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)